Rasmussen v. Kroger
266 P.3d 87
| Or. | 2011Background
- Petitioners Rasmussen and Darby challenge the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 18 (2012) in Oregon Supreme Court.
- Initiative Petition 18 would prohibit state/local estate tax, inheritance tax, death-related property transfer tax, and certain family-member transfer taxes, while allowing related fees.
- AG captioned the measure as a broad prohibition on estate/inheritance taxes and certain family-transfer taxes, with minimal detail on scope.
- Petitioners argue the caption misstates scope by implying all estates are taxed, rather than only those above $1 million, and seek caption/certainty corrections.
- The court reviews caption under ORS 250.035(2) and, on reflection, directs modification of caption and yes/no vote statements; invites correction of the summary to reflect a post-HB 2541 IRC date.
- Prior Rasmussen decisions inform the analysis, distinguishing measures that phase out vs. immediate prohibitions and the need to disclose scope in caption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caption accurately identifies measure scope? | Rasmussen argues caption misleading about scope of taxes. | Kroger contends caption reasonably identifies major effect as prohibition. | Caption must more clearly reflect scope; modified caption required. |
| Yes/No statements adequately describe results? | Statements fail to specify current law taxes only $1M+ estates. | Statements, when read with caption, inform limited scope of current law. | Yes/No statements must separately or together inform that only $1M+ estates are taxed and repeal would remove that; modify. |
| Summary should disclose revenue impact? | Caption summary should note revenue reduction. | Yes vote explanation already notes revenue reduction; not required in caption. | Revenue impact not mandatory in caption; party position rejected. |
| IRC date accuracy in the summary? | Summary references IRC as of 2000; HB 2541 altered reference. | Date should be updated to reflect current code. | AG invited to correct the IRC date in summary on referral. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rasmussen v. Kroger, 351 Or. 195 (Or. 2011) (caption must disclose scope of major change when measure shifts tax regime)
- Rasmussen v. Kroger, 350 Or. 533 (Or. 2011) (caption must reflect scope of estate/inheritance tax changes)
- Whitsett v. Kroger, 348 Or. 243 (Or. 2010) (subject matter is the measure's major effect; informs caption scope)
- Kain/Waller v. Myers, 337 Or. 36 (Or. 2004) (framework for major effects and scope in ballot titles)
- Potter v. Kulongoski, 322 Or. 575 (Or. 1996) (textual coherence of caption and vote-result statements)